Tennessee Riverkeeper, Inc. v. City of Cookeville, Tennessee
Plaintiff: Tennessee Riverkeeper, Inc.
Defendant: City of Cookeville, Tennessee doing business as Cookeville Water and Sewer Department
Case Number: 2:2022cv00044
Filed: September 23, 2022
Court: US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
Presiding Judge: Waverly D Crenshaw
Referring Judge: Alistair Newbern
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 33 U.S.C. ยง 1365 Environmental Matters
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on November 21, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
November 21, 2022 Filing 19 RESPONSE in Opposition re #13 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction filed by Tennessee Riverkeeper, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Attachment Martin Declaration, #2 Exhibit 1, #3 Exhibit 2)(Martin, Mark)
November 15, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 18 ORDER: Counsel for the parties appeared for a telephonic initial case management conference with the Magistrate Judge on November 14, 2022. Counsel addressed the projected scope of discovery and the pending motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. To accommodate briefing of the motion to dismiss, the initial case management conference is CONTINUED to January 26, 2023, at 11:00 a.m. The parties shall call (888) 557-8511 and enter access code 7819165# to participate. By January 25, 2023, the parties shall file a joint amended proposed initial case management order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alistair Newbern on 11/15/2022. (mg)
November 14, 2022 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Alistair Newbern: Case Management Conference by Telephone held on 11/14/2022. (Hearing lasted 00:11)(sd)
November 10, 2022 Filing 17 PROPOSED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER filed by Tennessee Riverkeeper, Inc.. (Martin, Mark)
November 8, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 16 ORDER: On November 7, 2022, Defendant City of Cookeville, Tennessee, filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) or 12(b)(6). (Doc. No. #13 .) Under Local Rule 7.01(a)(3), any response in opposition must be filed within fourteen days of service of the motion. An optional reply may be filed within seven days of service of a response. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alistair Newbern on 11/8/2022. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(ln)
November 7, 2022 Filing 15 MEMORANDUM in Support of #13 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction filed by City of Cookeville, Tennessee . (Grooms, Garry)
November 7, 2022 Filing 14 DECLARATION of Barry Turner filed by City of Cookeville, Tennessee. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Complaint, #2 Exhibit Consent Decree, #3 Exhibit TDEC Screenshot)(Grooms, Garry)
November 7, 2022 Filing 13 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction by City of Cookeville, Tennessee. (Grooms, Garry)
October 14, 2022 Filing 12 NOTICE of Appearance by Garry K. Grooms on behalf of City of Cookeville, Tennessee (Grooms, Garry)
October 5, 2022 TN State Bar status verified as active for William L. Penny admitted to this court. (ad)
October 4, 2022 Filing 11 NOTICE of Appearance by William L. Penny on behalf of All Defendants (Penny, William)
September 29, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 10 ORDER granting #9 : Having satisfied the requirements of Local Rule 83.01(b), the Motion for Mark E. Martin to Appear Pro Hac Vice is granted. Signed by Lynda Hill, Clerk of Court, on 09/29/2022. (lh)
September 29, 2022 Filing 9 MOTION to Supplement #8 MOTION for attorney Mark E. Martin to Appear Pro Hac Vice (paid $150 PHV fee; receipt number ATNMDC-3675256) by Tennessee Riverkeeper, Inc.. (Martin, Mark)
September 29, 2022 NOTICE TO FILER re DE#8 : The pending pro hac vice motion does not comply with the Court's local rules, because the motion fails to state whether disciplinary proceedings by any disciplinary authority, a finding of contempt or a sanction under 28 U.S.C. 1927 by any court, or criminal charges have been instituted against the attorney seeking pro hac vice admission. Local Rule 83.01(b)(2). By no later than five (5) business days from the date of this docket annotation, the pro hac vice motion must be supplemented by the filing of a statement under oath of the attorney seeking pro hac vice admission disclosing such matters. Failure to do so will result in denial of the pro hac vice motion. (mg)
September 29, 2022 AL State Bar status verified as active for Mark E. Martin not admitted to this court - Local counsel secured. (mg)
September 28, 2022 Filing 8 MOTION for attorney Mark E. Martin to Appear Pro Hac Vice (paid $150 PHV fee; receipt number ATNMDC-3675256) by Tennessee Riverkeeper, Inc.. (Martin, Mark)
September 26, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 7 ORDER: This case is REFERRED to the Magistrate Judge for customized case management in accordance with Local Rule 16.01 and 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A). Lead counsel for the parties shall attend the initial case management conference. Signed by Chief Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr on 9/26/2022. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(kc)
September 26, 2022 Filing 6 NOTICE of Initial Case Management Conference by Telephone set for 11/14/2022 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Alistair Newbern. (hb)
September 26, 2022 Filing 5 Summons issued as to City of Cookeville, Tennessee. Service copies will be returned to counsel by mail. (hb)
September 26, 2022 Filing 4 NOTICE of Business Entity Disclosure Statement filing requirement. (hb)
September 26, 2022 Filing 3 NOTICE/INFORMATION regarding Consent of the Parties to the Magistrate Judge. (hb)
September 26, 2022 TN State Bar status verified as active for Elizabeth A. Alexander admitted to this court. (hb)
September 26, 2022 AL State Bar status verified as active for Mark E. Martin not admitted to this court - Local counsel secured. (hb)
September 26, 2022 NOTICE TO COUNSEL Mark E. Martin: WITHIN 21 DAYS, counsel shall file a Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, a Certificate of Good Standing signed by the Clerk of a United States District Court or a U. S. appellate court where admitted, and pay a fee of $150.00 (LR 83.01(b)). PHV due by 10/17/2022. (hb)
September 23, 2022 Filing 2 BUSINESS ENTITY DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed by Tennessee Riverkeeper, Inc. (hb)
September 23, 2022 Filing 1 COMPLAINT against City of Cookeville, Tennessee (Filing fee $402, Receipt number ATNMDC-3672854), filed by Tennessee Riverkeeper, Inc. (Attachments: #1 Attachment Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Attachment Appendix A, #3 Exhibit 1 - May Notice, #4 Exhibit 2 - Tobey Declaration, #5 Exhibit 3 - Redwine Declaration, #6 Exhibit 4 - Noel Declaration, #7 Exhibit 5 - Jonakin Declaration)(hb)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Tennessee Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Tennessee Riverkeeper, Inc. v. City of Cookeville, Tennessee
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Tennessee Riverkeeper, Inc.
Represented By: Elizabeth A. Alexander
Represented By: Mark E. Martin
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: City of Cookeville, Tennessee doing business as Cookeville Water and Sewer Department
Represented By: Garry K. Grooms
Represented By: William L. Penny
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?